The Financial Times reports that democracy has degraded since Nixon, because the Republicans did not feel Nixon was their man, but the Republicans do feel that Trump is their man. I find this slightly puzzling.

In passing, the FT reported the 4.3 percent unemployment rate as an unfortunate impediment with respect to the will to destroy the presidency.

Fixed Cross wrote:The Financial Times reports that democracy has degraded since Nixon, because the Republicans did not feel Nixon was their man, but the Republicans do feel that Trump is their man. I find this slightly puzzling.

Why do you find this puzzling?

Fixed Cross wrote:In passing, the FT reported the 4.3 percent unemployment rate as an unfortunate impediment with respect to the will to destroy the presidency.

Yeah, it's pretty consistent that when the economy seems to be doing good people like the ones in charge, regardless of accuracy.

“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

Fixed Cross wrote:The Financial Times reports that democracy has degraded since Nixon, because the Republicans did not feel Nixon was their man, but the Republicans do feel that Trump is their man. I find this slightly puzzling.

Why do you find this puzzling?

Because I think democracy is about having someone represent you. So in my mind, democracy now works, where in the time of Nixon it did not.

Fixed Cross wrote:In passing, the FT reported the 4.3 percent unemployment rate as an unfortunate impediment with respect to the will to destroy the presidency.

Yeah, it's pretty consistent that when the economy seems to be doing good people like the ones in charge, regardless of accuracy.

Isn't this why we elect leaders, for them to make life better?

The left keeps puzzling me. Do they elect leaders to make life shittier? Well I don't know if that should puzzle me, it would explain their candidates.

It's true of course that to the extent "peace and prosperity" prevails for any political party in any particular historical context, such things as sleaze and corruption can be more readily swept under the rug.

Perhaps even treason itself can be rationalized.

At the same time for those able to sustain their power either by creating a period of "peace and prosperity" or by inheriting it from those that came before them, they often get to call the shots regarding things not directly related to either the economy or foreign policy.

The conservatives sweep into power and suddenly things like abortion rights, homosexuality, the separation of church and state, race and gender narratives, value voter issues etc., are yanked in a whole new direction. Until the liberals sweep in again and the policies head back in the other direction.

One thing for sure: One individual's "shitty life" is often another individual's "bed of roses".

And the left is just as incredulous regarding those elections in which the voters put the right in power, making life a whole lot worse.

In the interim the economy will ever and always run hot and cold. It's called "the business cycle" and it seems to be entrenched in the very nature of capitalism itself.

Of course, even in times of relative prosperity, some will prosper considerably more than others.

That's why folks like Don Trump have to misdirect the attention of the white working class toward other things. And we know what they are, don't we? We've got a few of them here, right?

Only here I am still down in my fucking hole unable to react to it all as I once did: objectively.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles